Categories

Meta

Contemptuous

Contemptuous
By R.C. Seely
There has been a recent epidemic in the modern political era, one of what I call- Puritical Isolationism. In the past this was simply partisan politics as usual, the same old fight since Andrew Jackson founded his party of opposition, the Democrats. Now with the sudden increase of power and influence that the Libertarian and Constitutional parties have enjoyed, we too have become targets of animosity.
While a certain amount of distain has been the modius operandi for the democratic party, this is a level that is extreme for them. From the republican side of the aisle it’s not even unusual, since it’s the more entrenched in the two party system that are crying loudest.
Fortunately many of the rising stars of the GOP have been the voice of familial camaraderie for the third party options, and have suffered ridicule from the established elite. Their conduct has in fact created a surge of epileptic fits of fervor by the “good ole boys.” But these are the exceptions and not the rule.
This is sadly not limited to those of the elite or even major players. In a post on a social media site I read a GOPer refer to Libertarians as the “blood-sucking leeches of the Republican Party.” I have never had this level of contempt of others with an opposing opinion, and I should say this is downright rude. Such attitudes are not altogether foreign an experience. I do feel it my duty to mention, however, to those that commit such actions they really should reconsider a different battle plan.
So, I pose a question: What good does such antagonistic conduct accomplish?
Party lines are a very arbitrary and immaterial stance to take on the issues. So why make an enemy on an issue of disagreement, when you can make an ally on an issue of common cause? This attitude of enmity is completely unnecessary and unwarranted. It only exists as a form of soft censorship to close the door on an open debate. So another point of consideration: If your point is so valid, why are you so afraid to let the opposing perspective be heard? The end goal of “We the People” should not be to censor those we disagree with, but to hear them out. We debate an issue, then come to a consensus on how to fix the problem.
Setting aside our different agendas and proclivities and coming together with a mutual respect, not contempt. For our difference suggestions are the key to finding solutions to the problems of today. Close-mindedness and stubbornness is the key to destruction. Finding this middle ground for discussion, we can all have a civil debate and all options and perspectives are considered.
Our actions and tone can make the difference between an agitator and a great debater. Libertarian, republican, democrat, constitutionalist, socialist, whatever your persuasion, the differences are vast, but that doesn’t condone these tactics. This is censorship and intolerance, plain a simple and both are wrong. This is not what the founding fathers would have wanted, this is what King George would have wanted.
I’m not opposed to discourse keep in mind, just a division of people, not ideologies. A division of people is what comes from these tactics. So keep your toxic anger, hostility and party line contempt, and I will keep my free thought, individuality, liberty and open debate. We will see who makes it to the finish line first.
To quote Jimmy Stewart, from Harvey:
“An element of conflict in any discussion is a very good thing. It shows everybody’s taking part and nobody’s left out. I like that.”